Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chad Henson <dagii@excite.com>
To: submit@hsdebate.com
Subject: Henson, Chad - LD Judge
Hello. I will be attending Towson University (near Baltimore) in the fall
on debate scholarship and am adding my name to the list of available
judges. I will model my paradigm the same as Mr. Fitch did, mostly to
reflect similarities in judging style. I did primarily LD in Texas (with
all that implies, yes), but also competed in Original Oratory and Foreign
Extemp.
Location: Towson, MD (near Baltimore)
Events: LD, OO, Extemp, CX (in that order)
Contact: Chad Henson, Dagii@excite.com
Qualifications:
Forum Moderator, LDdebate.com
Degree of Special Distinction, NFL
Instructor at Towson International Debate Institute
TFA State Qualified in LD
Numerous Breaks, FX, OO, LD
First Place, Towson University
Third Place, Snyder Fall Classic
Invitation to Arlington Round Robin
Runner Up, NFL District Congress
Top 10, NFL District LD
VALUES/CRITERIA
First, the Affirmative must have a value. The Negative does not need a
value (I assume that the Neg subsumes the Aff's in that case). However,
the Justice vs. Morality debate is boring and leaves nothing to vote on.
I look to criterion clash primarily. Whoever achieves the highest value
by getting the most of a quantifiable criterion wins the round. At least
75% of the debate should focus on arguments, and I prefer something
around 90%.
EVIDENCE
I flow cards (Name and content), and am willing to vote on them if the
contain warrents. I will not seek a copy of the card if asked to vote on
it - I assume that what I have on my flow is the actual content. If there
is an issue, evidentiary challenges are the job of the tab room - not
mine. I do require a source citation (Dr. Jones is fine, assuming that
Dr. Jones wrote the card in actuality), and qualifications may be asked
for in CX if an opponent wishes to argue the validity of sources.
Arguments can be made without evidence, but I would not suggest it. Claim
evidence adds credibility. Self-warrented evidence makes an entire
argument and adds credibility.
REBUTTALS
The 1AR must clash and provide reasons to reject the negation as well as
advocate the affirmation. Only X-apply something from your AC if it was
dropped. Otherwise, come up with something new to respond to your
opponent's arguments. I have no problem with "stickies" or blocks, as
long as they are responsive to the issue.
On the other hand, if a response you make applies in more than one area,
please tell me to X-apply it. If you don't do that, you may get called on
a technical drop when you really responded to the idea of the argument.
PLEASE EXTEND DROPPED ARGUMENTS!!! It makes my job real easy. I have no
problem extending case arguments through to the 2AR, but keep in mind
that the NEG gets an extra chance to respond if you don't pull it across
in the speech following the drop.
Please make sure to rebut evidence/warrants. Refer to the "Brown
Analysis" or the "Litvack Card". Also, please address the case proper.
Jumping around from contention to subpoint gives me a messy flow. Messy
flow = muddled round. Tell me where you are on the flow at all times.
"Look to Contention 2, Subpoint A, Brown Analysis..." That's what I like
to hear.
As for Neg Voters, I prefer them at the end of the NR. That keeps the
issues real easy and my flow pad nice and neat. That aside, I will ACCEPT
voters anywhere you choose to give them, including down the flow. Just
say, "make it my (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) voting issue. Always number so
your judge (and opponent) can refer to the issue in question with ease.
For the 2AR, please address key issues (kritiks, definitions,
VALUE/CRITERION CLASH, etc.) if there are any that are left unclear in
the round. After that, please go straight voters. Only yours. If you wish
to address a voter the NEG gave, you need to have a reason you're winning
the issue and make it a voter for you. It bothers me when AFF tries to
take advantage of the NEG inability to respond. If you feel tempted to
test my intelligence, please do so by making new arguments in the 2AR. I
won't drop you for it, but you'll get really bad speaks.
PRESENTATION
Please use debate jargon. I key my flow to certain words (extend or flow
across gets an arrow to your next speech, etc.) and using those words
keeps me from having to think as much as I would otherwise.
I love a spread, I hate blips. Therefore, make as many arguments as you
can with warrents. Please take this as a liscense to go as fast as you
can while speaking clearly. The human brain can comprehend 500 words a
minute, so I suggest that as a maximum.
ALTERNATIVE/UNIQUE CASE POSITIONS
I love kritiks and squirrels. Keep in non-offensive if plausible (I
wouldn't care much for a religion case, for example). Regardless, I
accept anything as valid unless their opponent challenges the validity of
the argument.
STUDENT/JUDGE INTERACTION
If the tournament allows me to disclose, I will do so. If not, I will be
happy to talk to you about your round as soon as I am allowed. See me in
the parking lot or cafeteria. Make sure to bring your flow and your
opponent if possible.
I trust students to time themselves appropriately. I cannot give time
signals regularly and pay the flow the attention it deserves.
We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the
ungrateful. We have done so much for so long, with so little, we are now
qualified to do anything with nothing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
|
